Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[think positive]

Is there any truth to the Facebook article written by this Jacinta person about the treaty etc? I just read it on a friends page. Thisfriends standings on certain things definitely don’t match mine, but it’s a scary read if true

[David]

Can you quote it? I assume you're referring to a post by Jacinta Price? Otherwise, no idea.

[stui magpie]

I haven't seen it, but I understand that Price is one of a number of First Nations Peoples who are on the side of treaty before voice. I don't know how you can do that logistically, there's hundreds of different Nations that would need to be involved in a treaty.

I'm feeling that the Voice referendum is doomed, not because of Dutton and the Lib/Nats, but because there will be First Nations Peoples campaining for the No vote. They have a simple message, "Not my Voice" apparently and for anyone on the fence just wanting to do the right thing, that may be enough to raise doubts.

It's not like the referendum to include them in the census which had bi-partisan support and almost no dissenters, this time the No campaign has Indigenous faces.

Albo really needs to step up communication on how this is intended to work and counter some of the potential misinformation, not just leave it to the Yes campaign, it's his baby.

One thing I read recently is that some/many traditional owner communities are scared of the idea of the voice because presently they have direct access to Government(s) in decisions about their lands and they're scared that that may change and they have to instead go through the Voice.

There's some seemingly valid concerns being raised that need to be addressed quickly if this has a chance of being successful.

[David]

[David]

[stui magpie]

meanwhile, according to polls, support for the Yes vote continues to decline.

[Skids]

This is being implemented in WA only, 1st of July.

Want a sneak peak on how The Voice will effect every aspect of Australians lives?

On July 1st the WA - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act will be begin. Any home on land over 1100sqm will need approval to do anything on their land.

Between the fees & levies from State governments & permits and approvals from local councils, it has become nearly impossible to do what you want on your own land. Now this.

Those who produce food for our tables and the resources that allow us to be the lucky country will be most severely effected. Which in turn will effect EVERY Australian.

Are we waking up yet? Under an Albanese Labor government, Australians will always come last.

ATTENTION - WA Residents only.

Below is the link to the Parliamentary petition to to delay the promulgation of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021. Please sign and share.

https://parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament ... tid=Zxz2cZ

#VoteNoAustralia
#VoteNO
#UluruStatement
#VoiceToParliament
#auspol #food #farmers #resources #australianbusiness #australianmanufacturing #australianjobs #homebuyers #land #economy #westernaustralia #sign #parliament #petition
@7NewsAustralia

[David]

What does the above have to do with the Voice to Parliament? It's being posed as the kind of thing that will be brought in if the referendum is successful ... but that doesn't make any sense, because the Voice to Parliament didn't exist yet, and this act is about to be legislated anyway.

Clearly, you don't need the Voice to bring something like this in. And if the Voice to Parliament does come into existence, then it will remain an advisory body whose recommendations need to be voted on by parliament in order to be implemented. So governments will remain democratically accountable for any law like this they want to implement, and be faced with the consequences if it turns out to be unpopular or poorly thought through.

Anyway, here are the facts on the WA Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act:

https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/wes ... 5dgbi.html

How the rules work

The new rules break down the impact of land changes into three tiers.

Tier one is work that has no ground disturbance and does not require a permit.

Tier two changes do require a work permit and cover land changes with minimal ground disturbance, like a farm road or fence.

Tier three covers major ground disturbances, which range from building a farm dam to digging a mine. This work requires a management plan developed with a local Aboriginal group.

Changes not near an Aboriginal cultural heritage site do not require a permit.

Landowners themselves can determine whether there is a site but risk penalties including jail if they fudge it or get it wrong.

The government is paying $10 million to establish local Aboriginal cultural heritage services that will be a one-stop-shop for permit and management plans, as well as help to determine what sites are of cultural significance in the absence of a heritage survey.

With the new rules just a fortnight away no services have officially been formed despite more than 20 applications.

Buti’s spokesman said the new laws did not rely on services being established and landowners could consult existing relevant native title bodies.

[nomadjack]

Wow...a scare campaign based on bullshit...didn't see that coming...

"On July 1st the WA - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act will be begin. Any home on land over 1100sqm will need approval to do anything on their land.

Between the fees & levies from State governments & permits and approvals from local councils, it has become nearly impossible to do what you want on your own land. Now this."

Don't see even a hint of irony in these two comments from your post Skids?

[slangman]

If the Voice is only intended to be an advisory body whose recommendations will still require to be voted and passed by parliament, why does it need to be in the constitution??

Sounds like a lobby group really and after the corruption and ineptitude of ATSIC there will be no mechanism to dismantle the Voice if and when the same thing happens again.

It is a backward step imho for Australia to segregate into different race classes after so many years getting us all to be all equal in the constitution.
I have followed this closely and I am still to hear a compelling reason why this should be in the constitution.
I’m all for a voice to parliament but not for it to be in the constitution.

[David]

Sounds like a lobby group really and after the corruption and ineptitude of ATSIC there will be no mechanism to dismantle the Voice if and when the same thing happens again.

On the contrary, I would assume that a more regulated status enables more oversight (and thus less scope for behind-the-scenes corruption). See this explainer from the ANU's First Nations Portfolio:

https://www.anu.edu.au/about/strategic- ... parliament

Won't the Voice just be another ATSIC?

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was a national Indigenous representative body that existed between 1989 and 2004. The Commission combined representative and administrative roles. Elected Indigenous representatives could identify funding priorities, formulate, and implement policy and plans, make decisions over public expenditure, and protect cultural material and information. However, ATSIC faced several structural problems. In 2004, it was abolished with bipartisan support. Is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice going to be another ATSIC?

No. Much has been learned from the experience of ATSIC and so the structure of the Voice will be different. The Voice will not deliver government programs. It will be a representative body that makes representations to Parliament and the government on law and policy that affect Indigenous Australians. This more limited role will avoid the structural complications that ATSIC faced.

It's the "will not deliver government programs" part that's probably most relevant there. It's easy to see how that aspect of ATSIC could have been vulnerable to the misappropriation of finances, whereas obviously that's far less of a concern here.

As for why it should be in the constitution, that's addressed in the same link:

10. Why do we need to put the Voice in the Constitution?

Many people believe the Voice is a good idea, but they do not know why it should be put in the Constitution. They wonder whether it would make more sense for Parliament to establish the Voice in legislation.

This is a good question. The Parliament could pass a law tomorrow that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. However, there are three good reasons why the Voice needs to be put in the Constitution.

• The Constitution will provide the Voice with security and stability.
The Parliament has established three national Indigenous representative bodies in the past. These bodies empowered Indigenous Australians to speak to government about laws and policies that affected them. In each case, however, the body was abolished after several years. Putting an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution will make it harder for government and Parliament to do away with the Voice.

• Putting the Voice in the Constitution will make it more likely to succeed.
The Voice will not be able to force the Parliament or government to change laws or policies. Its success will rely on political and moral pressure. However, Parliament and the government are more likely to listen to the Voice if it has been endorsed by the Australian people at a referendum. Australians will have made clear that they want their political leaders to take the Voice seriously. Without a referendum, Parliament and government will find it easier to ignore the Voice.

• Putting the Voice in the Constitution is an Act of Recognition and Respect.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have more than 60,000 years of connection to this continent. Putting the Voice in the Constitution would mean that the Australian people formally recognise that history and status. It is also the form of recognition asked for by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. For over a decade Australians have debated whether and how to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. In the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people said that putting a Voice in the Constitution is the way that they would like to be recognised.

I can see how the first reason strengthens both the yes and no cases: the Voice is going to be more or less permanently enshrined in a way that previous institutions weren't, so, yes, we almost certainly won't be getting rid of it once it's there. I think that's resolutely a good thing, and something to be embraced: there's no good reason to be going into this half-baked. Indigenous Australians are right to ask for and expect a meaningful and formally enshrined form of representation that will inform government policy.

[think positive]

i agree slangman, totally.


As for planning permits and heritage land, I get what you mean skids. Geelong council wont let you chop trees or shrubs without approval, not legally anyway. im lucky, i only have a couple of small areas not within the building envelope that's marked heritage, but i still got 3calls/emails re trees where we want to put our shed, yet the trees are not on our land! they overhang! meanwhile we have planted 46 new trees! Its already hard enough!

I really want an answer to the question about land ownership and whether this will effect it, or its scare tactics. more to the point, exactly what comes under the umbrella of the voice? I don't think any party or person that has not been elected by the people should have a voice in anything at all that does not directly impact first nation people. There is far too much room for abuse of the system, I don't trust any politicians, I don't care who or what colour they are, to be able to resist temptation.

can we put a poll on the thread? id be interested to see the result here. I for one will be voting No. Originally I was yes, but when so many first nation people are putting themselves out there with no votes and their reasoning, I started reading a bit more. I have trust issues, its a no from me!

[think positive]

• The Constitution will provide the Voice with security and stability.
The Parliament has established three national Indigenous representative bodies in the past. These bodies empowered Indigenous Australians to speak to government about laws and policies that affected them. In each case, however, the body was abolished after several years. Putting an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution will make it harder for government and Parliament to do away with the Voice.

why?

[Skids]

Don't see even a hint of irony in these two comments from your post Skids?

Calm down Jack.
You'll notice I posted this around 2am this morning after getting an email regarding it from a friend who runs a pastoral lease in the Gascoyne which is the size of a small African country.

It's not 'my' post, I should have posted it more in lines with rule 97, part 4b of the Nick's left wing socialist party movement... but I was tired.

I could change it to the comrades liking, but I'm sure it will be edited if it doesn't conform. I put it here as a piece of information, I did sign the petition at my mates request.

[David]

• The Constitution will provide the Voice with security and stability.
The Parliament has established three national Indigenous representative bodies in the past. These bodies empowered Indigenous Australians to speak to government about laws and policies that affected them. In each case, however, the body was abolished after several years. Putting an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution will make it harder for government and Parliament to do away with the Voice.

why?

Others will know more about the history of this than I do, but I assume they're referring to ATSIC and its predecessor, the National Aboriginal Conference (formerly known as the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee). The history of the NAC probably has more relevant lessons to be drawn on regarding the development of the Voice and what its strengths and weaknesses might be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... Conference